BOARD01134 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . vehicle for reconciling our competing expectations. This agreement is premised on the hope that this mechanism will prove more reliable that the 1993 Section 7 Agreement because it is formally recognized in the ESA and the FWS regulations. We have also agreed that the Recovery Program should provide the mitigation measures ("reasonable and prudent alternative") needed to address ESA requirements for existing depletions and future depletions. Although this merely confirms a generally accepted expectation among most Recovery Program participants, it is significant because there are so many new water user participants in these discussions. We have agreed that it would be best if this programmatic biological opinion could cover the impacts of all existing depletions and an increment of 120 KAF of future depletions. This is significant for several reasons. First, it would make the proposed programmatic biological opinion consistent with the CWCB carveout for the IS-Mile Reach and provide sufficient time to work on Recovery Program actions before we need to retum to a review of the regulatory status. Furthermore, we hope that by providing increased "certainty" in the regulatory context for this large increment of future depletion, we may avoid the "rush on the teller cage" that might occur if it appeared the increment for future development is so limited that it will soon determine which communities or uses can grow and which cannot. Finally, we have agreed that existing flows and future depletions should be accounted for using gage records and our Colorado River Decision Support System (CROSS). To that end, we have completed the development of the "baseline" investigation with CROSS and provided that (the so-called "C-I" runs) to the FWS. We are still working with FWS staff to ensure that they understand what this represents and . how to use it. Our discussions also indicate that the potential "reasonable and prudent altemative" (i.e., the mitigation measures required in conjunction with the proposed depletion impacts) can largely be derived from the existing Recovery Action Plan (the "RIPRAP"). However, there are several suggested additions to the RIPRAP, some of which are reviewed below. We have also agreed to develop "recovery agreements" between the FWS and water users which would reflect the water users' commitment "not to take any action which would probably prevent the accomplishment" of the reasonable and prudent altemative. These agreements would presumably remain in effect until the fish are declared extinct, removed from the ESA list, or until FWS determines that the actions included in the reasonable and prudent a1temative are not needed. Ruedi Reservoir still plays a significant role. The FWS has proposed a revised Biological Opinion for the Round II Sales that will enable the Bureau of Reclamation to resume contracting if it is apporved. This revised Opinion has just become available for review and comments are due by October I, 1998. Our IS-Mile Reach discussions contemplate a short-term lease of 10,825 acre feet of water from Ruedi by December 1999 and agreement on a permanent dedication of 10,825 acre feet of flows from Ruedi or other sources for the IS-Mile Reach by September 200 I. The water users have agreed on a proposal to split this permanent supply evenly between the east and west slopes. On